4 ms·

My wish for a better news ecosystem would be this: At the bottom of every story should be - at least one but preferably a few - exact quantitative predictions

My wish for a better news ecosystem would be this: At the bottom of every story should be - at least one but preferably a few - exact quantitative predictions based on the story. So, for example, after a dramatic story about a pending government shutdown it should say: - over 100 children will die due to loss of funding to lunch programs (if shutdown occurs %78 - Government will be shut down for > 2 weeks %63 - > 10,000 gov employees lose a month of pay %54 And then if the predictions don't pan out it'll be obvious that most of it was hyperventilating, and if they do, I'll know to take seriously their warnings about the world coming to an end. Another plus is; I think while the writer is choosing probabilities, he/she will realize he/she might have oversold the story, and will go back and rewrite it

johnea 2y ago
My preference would be the opposite of this: I'd like to see news report factual information on events that have actually ocurred. Prediction is not news, it's a guess. A guess is fictional, not factual. I'd prefer factual news...
- FergusArgyll 2y ago
  I don't think that's possible... In my opinion; all news articles have implicit predictions, I'd like to see them be explicit so the journalists can be held accountable for example, here's (opening paragraph) one of the top articles from Fox News: The majority of official documents signed by President Joe Biden allegedly used the same autopen signature, reinvigorating concerns over the former president’s mental acuity and if he "actually ordered the signature of relevant legal documents," a report published by an arm of the Heritage Foundation found. Here's an excerpt from MSNBC's top (non-opinion) story Trump’s return to the White House has increased geopolitical tensions, as he’s enacted sweeping changes to the United States’ international military and economic policies and upended decadeslong relationships with several close allies. Tensions between the U.S. and Canada, in particular, have manifested at recent sporting events, with Canadian fans booing the American national anthem at professional games after Trump suggested that Canada allow itself to be annexed. The implicit predictions here are something like: (Fox News) 1) Other presidents personally signed most of their official documents (87%) 2) Biden was unaware of the content of legal documents being signed in his name (79%) 3) White House staff made executive decisions without presidential authorization (88%) (MSNBC) 1) Canada will formally cut diplomatic ties with the US by the end of Trump's term (35%) 2) American citizens will face increased hostility or travel restrictions in at least 5 allied nations (40%) 3) At least three longtime US allies will form a new coalition specifically to counter American influence (81%) I'm obv not sure I'm extracting those correctly, but I think you get the point; the tone in which articles are written (and even more insidious is the decision on which stories are "important" / the frequency of certain storylines over others) are intended to impart an opinion, I want that explicit

johnea 2y ago

My preference would be the opposite of this: I'd like to see news report factual information on events that have actually ocurred. Prediction is not news, it's a guess. A guess is fictional, not factual. I'd prefer factual news...

FergusArgyll 2y ago
I don't think that's possible... In my opinion; all news articles have implicit predictions, I'd like to see them be explicit so the journalists can be held accountable for example, here's (opening paragraph) one of the top articles from Fox News: The majority of official documents signed by President Joe Biden allegedly used the same autopen signature, reinvigorating concerns over the former president’s mental acuity and if he "actually ordered the signature of relevant legal documents," a report published by an arm of the Heritage Foundation found. Here's an excerpt from MSNBC's top (non-opinion) story Trump’s return to the White House has increased geopolitical tensions, as he’s enacted sweeping changes to the United States’ international military and economic policies and upended decadeslong relationships with several close allies. Tensions between the U.S. and Canada, in particular, have manifested at recent sporting events, with Canadian fans booing the American national anthem at professional games after Trump suggested that Canada allow itself to be annexed. The implicit predictions here are something like: (Fox News) 1) Other presidents personally signed most of their official documents (87%) 2) Biden was unaware of the content of legal documents being signed in his name (79%) 3) White House staff made executive decisions without presidential authorization (88%) (MSNBC) 1) Canada will formally cut diplomatic ties with the US by the end of Trump's term (35%) 2) American citizens will face increased hostility or travel restrictions in at least 5 allied nations (40%) 3) At least three longtime US allies will form a new coalition specifically to counter American influence (81%) I'm obv not sure I'm extracting those correctly, but I think you get the point; the tone in which articles are written (and even more insidious is the decision on which stories are "important" / the frequency of certain storylines over others) are intended to impart an opinion, I want that explicit